Re: [PATCH 00/10] foundations for reserve-based allocation

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Daniel Phillips
Date: Monday, August 6, 2007 - 11:40 am

On Monday 06 August 2007 11:17, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
= 2

Glad I asked :-)


True.  It is not immediately obvious from the declaration that the 
overloaded field is always freed up before anybody else needs to use 
the union.


Ah I see.  I used to let alloc_pages fail then repeat the allocation 
with __GFP_MEMALLOC set, which was easy but stupidly repetitious.  Your 
technique is better, though returning the status in the page still 
looks a little funny.  This is really about saving a page flag, no?


Serves me right for not reading that bit.  So the score for that round 
is: peterz 3, phillips 0 ;-)

Regards,

Daniel
-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[PATCH 00/10] foundations for reserve-based allocation, Peter Zijlstra, (Mon Aug 6, 3:29 am)
Re: [PATCH 00/10] foundations for reserve-based allocation, Daniel Phillips, (Mon Aug 6, 10:35 am)
Re: [PATCH 00/10] foundations for reserve-based allocation, Christoph Lameter, (Mon Aug 6, 10:56 am)
Re: [PATCH 00/10] foundations for reserve-based allocation, Peter Zijlstra, (Mon Aug 6, 11:17 am)
Re: [PATCH 00/10] foundations for reserve-based allocation, Peter Zijlstra, (Mon Aug 6, 11:33 am)
Re: [PATCH 00/10] foundations for reserve-based allocation, Daniel Phillips, (Mon Aug 6, 11:40 am)
Re: [PATCH 00/10] foundations for reserve-based allocation, Daniel Phillips, (Mon Aug 6, 12:31 pm)
Re: [PATCH 00/10] foundations for reserve-based allocation, Peter Zijlstra, (Mon Aug 6, 12:36 pm)
Re: [PATCH 00/10] foundations for reserve-based allocation, Daniel Phillips, (Mon Aug 6, 12:53 pm)
Re: [PATCH 00/10] foundations for reserve-based allocation, Daniel Phillips, (Mon Aug 6, 5:09 pm)